Minority Minorities: Group Polarization

Creating or maintaining a group identity can be both profoundly reassuring and unequivocally dangerous.  For example, a group of individuals sharing predilections for recycling and reusing would amass no real threat and we might applaud them for their group mindset of being environmentally conscious.  On the other hand, a set of individuals that group around mutual feelings of entitlement and paranoia are potentially setting themselves up to become something very hateful and corrupting to larger systems of discussion and democracy.  And while groups, in general, might simultaneously engender and reinforce homogeneity, they can also provide a safe—or just, existing—environment for those that would not otherwise be heard as individuals.  But what happens when you have and even desire a group identity for cultural reasons, but do not agree or support (all of) the political and social positions within that group?

For many, Black identity has come to be seen as something very concrete and notoriously unyielding to change, especially on issues of religion and sexuality.  Both of which have direct correlations to political participation.  Due to the strength of the group, you have to wonder to what extent the minority within the minority can actually be heard without facing ostracism by their own group or inadvertent inclusion by another.  Yes, it is very much possible to have dual or multiple identities when the connections are for less serious groups, but with race—whether social construction or not—is the luxury of temporary dissociation even available?  I cannot remove my physical “blackness,” so whether I actively want to be a part of the group and assume its identity becomes somewhat irrelevant if I am automatically included and given its attributes.  So, in this instance, political participation most certainly has the capability of becoming that of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Literally or figuratively, you find yourself saying, “Well, my racial group disproportionately or historically or most frequently votes in this way, so let me continue that, because my identity with this group supersedes that of any others I may belong to.”  And I know this because it is reinforced daily from within and outside of the group.  Now, whether this is fair or accurate or problematic or insignificant is a topic for another day, but when we examine groups defined by race, that becomes the main characteristic around which we base their identity.   

Although I have written about the dystopian state of the Internet in response to early 90s expectations, even I cannot deny that there are certain levels of anonymity that exist on the Internet and so when you remove this visual element perhaps it is possible for the minority within the minority to act outside of their group identity.  Of course, with the ever-increasing presence of webcams, YouTube, photo albums, and geolocation applications, that anonymity slowly fades and once again whether you oblige or not, your group identity is determined by your race. And yes, if you have read through my other blog posts, there is a disparity in who gets this judgment.

So, how do we fight both (1) the desire to group and (2) the tendency to define an individual only in terms of the group?  Increased options and structured diversity in the information we consume are two possible considerations. However, they are only possible insomuch as we can begin to break down our dependency on flocking to birds of a feather and decreasing polarization between groups and individuals.

Advertisement